Hits: 0
WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F.Bailey. August 24, 2006: The Board of Education discussed the recommendations of the Capital Improvement Project Committee Monday evening at Education House, and at the end of the two hour meeting was very close to reaching a decision to bond for the full amount of the projects, $66.7 Million.
Their decision is being held in abeyance, depending on the nature and scope of donation expected from the “Super Developer,” Louis Cappelli, for the Loucks Field project, which would put the Board of Education in a position to recommend bonding for the full amount of the stadium renovations, the only part of the project the Board is not fully behind at the present time.
Timothy Connors, Superintendent of Schools, told the board he had impressed on Mayor Joseph Delfino, Monday, of the urgency to define Mr. Cappelli’s commitment. Connors said the Mayor told him his people were working on it and that “he (the Mayor) would get back to me.”
Editor’s Note: Mr. Cappelli had indicated in the spring he may give as much as $1 Million in inkind contributions. Connors said he would be in touch with the Mayor every day to attempt to get a firm commitment by the time the Board of Education considers its final decision on the scope of the referendum Monday evening.
Meanwhile, the Board’s Marie Tratoros, Peter Bassano, Robert Pollak, Donna McLaughlin, Terrance McGuire attending and Rick Tompkins again absent for the second straight meeting on the bond issue (Mr. Tompkins missed the presentation of the Capital Improvement Project Committee report last week), took up the issues of the bond referendum still in doubt: how much of Parker Stadium and Loucks Field they should renovate and how the bonds are issued.
With Russ Davidson, of Kayer, Garment & Davidson, the architect on the project, Robert Kerr of New York Municipal Advisors, and a representative of Triton Construction providing feedback, they launched into a discussion of the stadiums.
Seatcutback considered.
The Capital Improvement Project Committee had recommended scaling back the Parker Stadium to executing safety concerns only (removing the ruins of the concrete bleachers), not installing artificial surface and cutting seating capacity to 650. Davidson, upon questioning, said cutting the seating capacity of Parker Stadium by installing only 650 seats instead of the 1350 requested by the Highlands Middle School Principal (to meet the entire student body outside in the stadium several times a year) would save about 1/3 of the $1,000,000 cost to install the 1,350 seats alone. The Board noted that to install new grass sod a crushed stone track and 650 seats with no press box would cost $2.3 Million. The project has originally envision would install articifical surface, press box and 1,350 seats of bleachers, and new track for $3,672,717.
Davidson also said that Mike Lynch, the district Manager of Facilities and Operations, and told him “in order to do bring it (Parker Stadium) up to code (for disability access, electric, stair railings), you have to take it (the concrete stands) out. I don’t think there’s any way of restoring it (present stands).”
Connors went around the table asking the present Board members their opinions on excuting the Parker Stadium renovation.
Mr. Pollak said he would be in favor of the Loucks Field renovation, but was reluctant to execute more than the 650 seats at Parker Stadium, and would feel more inclined to do so if the district knew it was receiving a donation on the Loucks Field renovation. McLaughlin chided Mr. Pollak for bring politics into a decision “for the kids.” Pollak said he felt that was an inappropriate reference. The only member positive on doing all of Parker Stadium was Donna McLaughlin. Connors, the Superintendent said that by not artificial turfing Parker the district would lose the extra capacity of field use synthetic turf would provide to the community and the schools.
“If we are going to expand out middle school athletic programs (more teams and opportunities), there are not enough fields to commit (to that) now. These fields (Loucks and Parker with synthetic turf) would get maximum use,” Connors said.
Connors also said that once the fields were equipped with synthetic turf, depending on how much the city contributes, if the city wishes to use the new synthetic fields, “We’re going to have to negotiate that use.”
Donna McLaughlin asked the cost of a $1 Million in spending to the taxpayers. Terrance Schreurs, (who has a week to go before he retires his position as Assistant Superintendent for Business and Fred Seiler takes over), said the cost was about $3 per $1 Million. She expressed the benefits of the stadia improvements would be worth it considering the small cost in comparison to the rest of the monies being spent.
McLaughlin lobbies against Sodding citing Eastview debacle.
McLaughlin bitterly complained about the resodding of the Eastview Schools (for approximately $400,000) that was executed by the City of White Plains with tainted glass sharded soil as a reason for going synthetic turf at Parker. Sod would be installed at Parker Stadium if the field were not synthetic turfed. McLaughlin said, “It (sodding Eastview) was a waste of money.”
Superintendent of Schools Connors noted that “If you build it (the artificial turf stadiums) they will come.”
In a straw poll of the Board Members all members were in favor of going ahead with the Loucks Field renovations (lights, bleachers, synthetic turf) for approximately $6 Million.
McLauglin said, “For the high school…the benefit outweighs the cost…what we can deliver will be a benefit to the city.” She said she did not make decisions on costs but on “what’s best for kids and the community.”
Straw Poll
They all, with the exception of McLaughlin, were expressing doubts on the Parker renovation. Bassano was opposed to turfing Parker, and proposed doing the minimum, and leaving it to do sometime in the future. Pollak agreed
Mclaughlin again demurred, noting the Capital Improvement Project Committee criticized the Board of Education for lack of planning, indicating that not doing Parker Stadium now would be a lack of planning.
6 to 7% Construction Costs Drive Future Field Renovation Up
At that point, Russ Davidson the architect, upon questioning by Bill Pollak on the costs of delaying Parker, shared the point that construction costs were rising at 6 to 7% a year and construction costs to execute Parker down the road would escalate, while synthetic turf costs would not increase substantially. Pollak asked if the district did it now was synthetic turn at the bottom of the market. Davidson said, “it’s competitive.”
McLaughlin pressed the point that by not doing Parker now as originally planned, “We’re doing it half way.” She said it was not a good public position to take
Than Davidson said something that appeared to turn around the Board thinking. He said in districts he has worked where aspects of projects were not done, the district upon completion has been criticized by the public for what they omitted from projects. He said you fall victim to the “I can’t believe they did X and they didn’t do Y.”
Davidson’s comment appeared to make Pollak, McGuire, Eller, Bassano and Tratoros contemplative.
The Bonding. Hecht Correct BUT…
Next on the docket was accounting expert Richard Hecht’s suggestions made in the Capital Improvement Project Committee “Recommendations” that the Board of Education consider bonding the Priority 1 & 2 items over a shorter term and delaying executing them until 2011.
Terrance Schruers presented a memorandum he had written after contemplating Hecht’s proposal.
Schruers said that Hecht’s figures and projections were correct.
Hecht had written in the CIPC Recommendations that by bonding the infrastructure (Priority 1 & 2 work — $15 Million) over 25 years, that “the priority 3 work (not being done in the bond being considered) submitted by these experts would cost $14,000,000 if done now; these experts indicated that it is likely these projects would become priority 1 and 2 projects in 5 years. If each 5 years, the district borrows another $15,000,000 for infrastructure work, it will build up $40,000,000 of debt over 20 years; this level will limit the financial flexibility of the district.”
$12 Million in excess Interest.
Hecht, in addition projected that a 10 year bond on the Priority 1 & 2 infrastructure repairs would increase the tax rate in the short term over a 25 year life, but would pay one third of the amount borrowed ($5 Million) in interest. However, Hecht noted, the district would over 25 years pay ¾ of the amount borrowed in interest (about $12 million).
Schruers did not address this in his memorandum to the Board, stating only that Hecht was correct. Schruers told the board he got to thinking about what Hecht said and told the Board of his own thoughts on Hecht’s suggestion of bonding the infrastructure for 10 years instead of 25.
Schruers said he did not think voters would be interested in approving work in 2006 that would not be completed until 2011 and 2012. Hecht had suggested delaying the bonding of the priorities until about 2010 and combine the infrastructure needs now with the needs coming up in 5 years (when district present bond service would be lower).
The Assistant Superintendent for Business said the architect and construction manager contracts would be expired by 2011 and 2012 (and therefore not be available to over see the projects of the Priority 1s and 2s if they were delayed beginning construction until 2010).
Schruers questioned the rationale of delaying priority 1s and 2s, writing “The building condition survey (by Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson, architects), identified the infrastructure work as health, safety issues and reconstruction necessary to prevent building deterioration. What is the rationale for delaying the work until 2011 and 2012?
(Schruers has noted to WPCNR, only Americans with Disabilities Act standards and backflow valve installation are mandated to be done.)
Inflation Cost, Interest Fluctuation Reason to Move Now.
Triton Construction, Schruers said, estimates the additional cost added by inflation if the Priority 1s and 2s are delayed until 2011-2012 as being $6,553, 256. Hecht’s calling for five bond issuings instead of the three proposed (Infrastructure, Post Road School, Fields), would also cost the district $40,000.
The Assistant Superintendent for Business Schruers also wrote in the memorandum that he personally felt “the delay is not practical to authorize bonds in 2006 and issue pieces as late as 2011. The interest rates could significantly change from rates projected.” He also noted the uncertainty of SED aid and project approval processes.
Money on the Float
Robert Kerr, the bond expert noted that the municipal tax free bonds the District would issue for the project enabled the district to earn money on the amounts borrowed over the interest they are paying, thus softening the blow of the interest. Kerr cautioned though that the bond funds have to be spent within two years for the district to keep the interest float income and not have to pay taxes on those earnings. Kerr cautioned that the interest the district earns on the float would have to be spent on the specific project the bond issue finances.
Schruers also produced good news informing the board that the District could bond $8 million in tax certioraris in 2009, but he expected any certioraris in that amount would be paided for out of funds currently allocated for pension and retirement benefits that would no longer be needed for that purpose. He estimated the district would have $6 Million in cash to devote to certioraris, if needed. This cheered the Board of Education.
Moodys Loves White Plains
Mr. Kerr said the district bond rating was currently AA-2, “the top tier of the nation.”
The Board raised no questions about the costs projected of the scope of the project (other than the fields which account for 13% of the total project, now pegged at $70 Million.) The Board did not raise any questions about the costs of the extra interest payments, nor the possibilities of other building needs in the district and how that possibility would impact bond service in the future, as Mr. Hecht cautioned.
The Board of Education will meet Monday evening, August 28 to make a decision on the $70 Million Project.
